The Far-left Advocates Censorship Up Until They get Censored
A left wing youtuber who has advocated for banning hate speech as found his criticism of Lauren Southern placed in "limited state" by youtube effectively censoring the content. in response another far left youtuber mirrored the video in an attempt to bypass the censorship.If these people feel no one has an obligation to host your content and that content that could cause harm should be removed why would they try to bypass censorship? if youtube says their video causes harm shouldn't they agree?Or is this actually about politics and not principleSupport the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A left-wing YouTuber who is critical of free speech and agrees with deplatforming has found their video criticizing Lauren Southern censored.
Almost immediately after the video was placed in protected mode, another left-wing channel re-uploaded the video, and the original creator then encouraged others to go watch it and to subscribe to the channel that was attempting to bypass YouTube censorship.
The reason this is interesting is that the creator advocates for companies taking down content they feel could cause harm, or he feels could cause harm, and he says that companies have no obligation to host anyone's content.
I find this interesting, that people will advocate for censorship, but then complain about it and attempt to bypass it when they are the ones being censored.
And this isn't the only example of the far left getting angry that they are facing the brunt of the rules they advocate for.
So what exactly happened with this YouTube creator?
What does it mean for censorship and what are some other examples of the far left being hypocritical when it comes to deplatforming?
But before we get started, head over to patreon.com forward slash timcast and click become a patron to help support my work.
There are many different tiers to choose from, most notably tier 2.
At $10 per month, you get access to behind-the-scenes photos and videos, when available, typically when traveling.
So this is what I do for a living, and if you want to see more videos like this and more on-the-ground reporting, please consider becoming a patron today.
I first want to talk about this YouTuber, Rational Disconnect.
Who I think is actually doing a pretty good job, though they are more aligned with the far left, and I disagree with a lot of their arguments.
I think the channel is well thought out, and he has reasonable arguments.
He made a video five days ago, South Africa and the Far Right Part 1.
In the thumbnail we can see it says Apartheid was bad, but here's why it wasn't.
This video is a criticism of Lauren Southern's documentary Farmlands, which addresses issues that white farmers are facing in South Africa.
This is what you are greeted when you try to watch the video.
The following content has been identified by the YouTube community as inappropriate or offensive to some audiences.
You can then click I understand and wish to proceed.
All of the features for this video have been disabled, and the only way to actually find it is through a direct link from someone else.
Following this, Rational Disconnect tweeted, My video on the far right in South Africa has been mass flagged and put into limited state by YouTube.
You can still watch it, but you can't comment on or share it.
Some lovely people have been kind enough to mirror it.
I'll link them below, check them out, and give them a sub.
YouTube has decided that this video should be placed in a limited state.
Personally, I disagree with the idea of limiting videos because YouTube doesn't agree with their message, but this individual agrees that YouTube has a right to do this.
I also think YouTube has a right to do it, I just want to advocate for YouTube not to do it.
Because it's a political game.
If YouTube is allowed to take down one video, then they're gonna take down other videos as well.
And this is a perfect example of just why free speech is so important, be it in public or on a platform like YouTube.
What's particularly interesting about this case, though, is statements made by the YouTuber himself.
unidentified
Now, I agree that people should have the right to say whatever they want to, but that doesn't mean that they should be free from the consequences of that speech, or that they're entitled to anybody's platform.
But with that mentality, you can ban anything.
What happens when the people in power decide that what you're saying is oppressive?
Well, first off, that's a slippery slope fallacy.
But I agree that it's something to be worried about.
If we agree that it's reasonable that speech can be stopped because it's racist or xenophobic and will therefore lead to violence, Where do we draw that line?
And I agree that there's a risk there.
I would argue that any speech that's going to cause harm should fit into this category that shouldn't be acceptable or allowed on these platforms.
I want to point out, this isn't the biggest YouTuber in the world.
But the video that was censored was a criticism of Lauren Southern's documentary Farmlands, and I for one think we definitely need more critical views on everybody.
I disagree with YouTube putting it in a limited state.
But what's interesting here is that he calls it a slippery slope fallacy.
That, if he advocates for no platforming, what happens when he finds himself no platformed?
He says, that's a fallacy.
And sure enough, only a few days later, this exact thing has happened.
The slippery slope argument is not always a fallacy.
In this instance, it proved absolutely true.
And what I find fascinating, as we just heard, he says that content that could cause harm should be removed from these platforms, and these platforms have no obligation to host them.
I wonder, then, why this individual thinks it's fair to try and bypass that censorship.
Shouldn't they agree?
If YouTube says your video has been taken down, it should be removed, why would you try and put it back up?
You're going against your own principles.
Perhaps it's not about principles, it's about politics.
And what he views as causing harm is different from what YouTube views as causing harm.
The reason why I advocate for free speech, even on a private platform, is that my values are different from YouTube's values.
And I think it's important that we can all discuss our ideas without being shut down.
Otherwise, someone like YouTube will decide our values for us.
And it actually goes a bit beyond this.
Rational Disconnect then tweeted, LOL, Nazis flag my video and I get QFD Shadowband on the
same day.
F. Yikes.
He then posts a screenshot of a Shadowband check, and he finds that his account is in fact Shadowband.
When you're shadowbanned on Twitter, it means that sometimes your posts won't appear.
Certain posts won't appear, and it means that your content can only be viewed by those who actually follow you.
It's a bit complicated.
I don't know exactly how Twitter decides who and what will be shadowbanned.
Another thing that's important to bring up is that he says Nazis flagged his video, and it got it removed, but that's not actually how YouTube works.
Technically, yes.
Nazis, whoever, someone flagged his video.
But YouTube actually manually reviews the videos, at least according to a statement provided to me by YouTube.
In an email, they told me flagged content is not automatically taken down by the flagging system.
They went on to explain that videos are manually reviewed before being taken down.
That means somebody flagged the video, YouTube watched it and said, this video does not fit our guidelines and should be removed.
Now, I'm not sure if I'm going to accept YouTube's statement as fact when they say someone manually reviews the video.
That's what they said to me.
I've had videos taken down and then reinstated as well, but that doesn't mean they don't have someone manually review them, it just means whoever manually reviewed it might just flag it and have it removed.
But I did reach out to Rational Disconnect to get a statement on his actions and his views on the issue.
I said, I'm currently watching your video on Loren Southern.
I had a question.
If a private platform's determined that content violates its policy and censors it, why should you or others mirror content you know has been blocked?
In a statement from YouTube on the issue, they stated to me that they do not use bots to remove videos, and that they are manually reviewed before being censored or removed.
Based on YouTube's policy, shouldn't you accept the censorship based on your own argument?
From your video on No Platforming.
If you agree with a platform's right to censor content, why would you defy their rules?
Or at least encourage others to subscribe to those who do?
Do you think the far right should be allowed to bypass censorship when a platform deems the content to violate policy?
I then explained that I am working on a deadline and hoped to get a comment before I had to record.
He responded that he takes issue with some of my premise.
He's skeptical that YouTube actually has people looking at his reports.
He talks about how many creators, such as Sean and Jen and ContraPoints and 3 Euros, get put in limited states only to then have those limited states overturned after they can get in contact with someone.
He says he hasn't talked to anyone at YouTube.
He says in doing research for his video, he came across videos claiming a white genocide in South Africa had tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of views, which he found strange because his views have only 5,000 views, but were getting flagged and placed in a limited state, while these others weren't.
He then says that mass flagging has always been a problem, back to the days of creationists doing it to atheists, etc.
He said, if YouTube had a better track record, or even if, I was specifically told what part of the video was put into a limited state, I think you would have an argument.
As things stand, I think this was a clear abuse of the system.
I want to point out that I wasn't presenting an argument, simply asking him that based on YouTube's policy, would he agree with their removal?
He did not respond.
I then said, if the far right videos have more views, wouldn't it make sense that the left mass flags them as well?
And then asked, He didn't answer, but instead argued that I wasn't giving him enough time.
He said that he is troubled I would reach out when he was at work and only give him a vague time limit to answer.
Because of this, he says his statement is rushed, and he is understandably preoccupied at the time.
I told him journalism is always on a deadline, this is normal.
to which he responded again, Is it normal for someone to contact you at the last minute
saying, I'm about to run this story soon, I hope you can answer in
time.
This seems strange to me.
Yes, this is entirely normal.
It is basics of journalism.
I told him this and then said, I'm willing to hear your response,
but I'm not interested in debating the basics of journalism.
And I will also point out that he had enough time to make this very long response
about the issue of mass flagging and did not actually answer my question
about the principle for which I'd actually asked.
I'm not arguing that what he is saying is right or wrong, simply that YouTube has determined his video to be a violation of their standards.
that it could potentially cause harm to others and thus have it removed.
I asked finally, regardless of how you think the system functions,
YouTube has determined your video could cause harm and removed it.
Do you think bypassing that censorship is acceptable?
Why does this person, who agrees with a platform's right to remove content if they view it as causing harm,
why would they then advocate others to go to a channel that is bypassing the censorship imposed by YouTube?
It would seem a bit hypocritical in my opinion.
The channel Three Arrows mirrored the video yesterday, with 33,898 views as of right now, and nearly 3,000 likes.
It would seem that in action, those who advocate for deplatforming, be it an anti-fascist YouTube channel or a left-wing YouTuber, actually agree, in principle, with those who are center or right-wing on the issue of free speech, it just seems like they're using this as a weapon against those who don't agree with them.
Because when it comes down to it, they're absolutely willing to defy their own principles for political reasons.
We could also look at a personal example that affected me last year.
Patreon banned Lauren Southern.
And then, I asked for a comment from Patreon, and It's Going Down, an anti-fascist website, produced this.
Patreon caves to Tim Pool and the alt-right bans It's Going Down.
Well, at least I can appreciate they separated me from the alt-right.
At some point, they do quote someone calling me an alt-right troll.
But now I'm going to show you the exact email that I sent to Jack Conte, the CEO of Patreon.
Many people were asking me why I was getting this website banned, and I posted the email in full transparency.
I said, Hey Jack, sorry to bother you, but I sent a request for comment to Redacted that has so far gone unanswered.
Patreon currently hosts a page for a group called It's Going Down.
Users of the site often go into detail how they sabotage construction equipment, and in one instance, sabotage railroad tracks.
These activities can all be seen as creating a potential for a loss of life.
I understand there's a difference between a group and an individual, but a comment on why It's Going Down remains on Patreon would help to clarify your company's decisions.
I want to point out a few things in this email.
I redacted the name of their PR person because I didn't want them to face the brunt of online harassment.
I said users of the site.
I did not say those who host the site or those involved in the organization.
Simply that they are people who have articles on the site, users, who have posted these things.
And yes, It's Going Down was banned from Patreon.
So why then is It's Going Down so upset?
They agree with these principles.
They posted content that could be seen as causing harm, and Patreon decided to remove them from their platform.
The original individual, Rational Disconnect, did the same thing.
unidentified
I would argue that any speech that's going to cause harm should fit into this category that shouldn't be acceptable or allowed on these platforms.
Who determines what causes harm and what harm is he talking about?
Is he talking about the financial harm of YouTube?
Probably not.
I think he's talking about incitement to violence.
But when he uses vague language, it becomes complicated because then YouTube says, this video causes us financial harm, we're going to remove it.
It's also interesting that his video criticizing Lauren Southern was taken down, and Lauren Southern's documentary was not taken down.
It says to me that the standards can't be applied effectively.
This is not the biggest YouTuber in the world, but his videos are slowly getting better and he's gaining more subscribers, so I would actually encourage all of you to subscribe to his channel and actually hear what he has to say in terms of his arguments.
You don't have to think that he's right, you don't have to agree with him, but the point is, we should accept the right of others to speak, and we should actively oppose censorship, especially in this instance.
But I am encouraging everybody to politely and respectfully engage with creators like this, and encourage them to produce more content.
We really do need more critical views on YouTube.
And one thing that's missing from the YouTube space are people who are on the left and willing to have conversations and debates, at least in my opinion.
So again, comment below.
Let me know what you think about the issue.
How do you feel about free speech?
We'll keep the conversation going.
You can follow me on Twitter at TimCast.
More videos will be up on my second channel at 6 p.m.
